Knowledge Transfer in New Product DevelopmentResearch activities and perspectives

Prof. Alejandro G. Frankfrank@producao.ufrgs.br

October, 2014

Alejandro Germán FrankEducation/Position

• BS. Industrial Engineering @ UNaM, Argentina (2007)

• MSc. Production Engineering @ PPGEP/UFRGS (2009)

• Ph.D. Production Engineering @ PPGEP/UFRGS (2012)

• Visiting scholar @ Politecnico di Milano, Italy (2012)

• Post-doctoral researcher @ PPGEP/UFRGS (2013)

• Tenured Professor @ DEPROT/UFRGS (2013)

Professor of Industrial Organization

Research Fields

• Organizational Engineering and Management

• Quality Management

• Product Development

• Innovation management

Profile

Main research topics:Knowledge transfer in NPDBusiness model innovationProduct development tools

2

CV Lattes: Click here LinkedIn profile: Click here

Something about Porto Alegre Southern of Brazil (one of the BRICS economies)

Capital of Rio Grande do Sul (10mi. of inhabitants)

Population: Approx. 1.5 million. (3mi. Metropolitan region)

7th GDP of Brazil and the second economic region.

European hineritance – Mostly Germans, Italians andPortuguese

Industrial Region: Automotive, Forniture, Agroindustrial machinery

3

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)UFRGS

Ranking: 3th in Latin America

More than 40,000 students (graduation and

post-graduation) and 2,700 professors.

Industrial Engineering Department

Main areas:

• Operation Management

• Quality Engineering

• Product Development

• Ergonomics and Work Safety

• Transportation

Evaluated as the best PhD and MSc. Program in Brazil by the Education Ministry.

4

23 professors (PhD degree)35 PhDs students, 30 Master’s students, 5 post-doc fellows, 12 undergraduate research fellows.

Product Strategies

Product and Service Development Process Management

Product and servicedevelopment

Research evolution – Product Development field

LOPPQuality, Product

and processDevelopment

tools

Marketing research

Project andprocess

management

Demandforcasting

PDP management

and referentialmodels

PDP improvement

tools

Network value

strategies

InnovationStrategies /

Business model innov.

My research group

6

• Organizational Engineering Group

Combining managerial approaches with industrial engineering tools in order toprovide solutions for the organizations.

Main topics addressed by our group:

Product development management (mainly focused on the strategical decisionsfor NPD).

Business model innovation

Innovation factors

Knowledge management Specially focused on

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge Transfer in NPD teams

KT is the process of knowledge movement from a source to a recipient and its subsequent absorption and use, aiming to take advantage of prior experience and solutions.

• Not only the transmission between source and recipient, but the whole process, (including acquisition from the source, application and incorporation by the recipient)

• Our main concern: KT between project teams (group unit) and between different projects (inter-project), which is not a natural process in organizations.

• Our approach: We do not deal directly with the knowledge domain, but we address the managerial factors that help fostering KT.

7

A meta-model for KT between NPD teams

8

KT process stages

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

KT influencing factors relationship

Companies’ organizational characteristics

Impact of influencing factors on KT stages

Estratégias

de Produtos

Métodos e

ferram. de

DP

TI e Bases de

dados

Ambiente

físico e

Infraestrutura

Motivação e

interesses

individuais

Competências

técnicas e

humanas

Estratégias e

práticas de gestão

das equipes

Relacion.

com centros

de P&D

Políticas

governamentais

Formação e

cultura regional

Equipamentos

de DP

Ambiente

virtual de

trabalho

Liderança e

estratégia

organizacional

Cultura e

clima

organizacional

Rel. com

Fornecedor

Org. de

ativides e

estrutura

dos projetos

Main aim of this study:

To understand thesesystemic relationships

To propose managerialtools for improving theorganizational conditionsthat help fostering KT

Book in process (2015)

KT process consolidation (Frank & Ribeiro, 2014)

KT is frequently considered as an isolated act instead of a process.

There are some proposal of KT process stages lack of a heterogenity of concepts

RQ: Which are the main KT stages between NPD teams?

Analysis of 14 models: Engineering & Emerging approaches

9

KT process consolidation (Frank & Ribeiro, 2014)

10

Results 4 main phases and 10 stages

A meta-model for KT between NPD teams

11

KT process stages

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

KT influencing factors relationship

Companies’ organizational characteristics

Impact of influencing factors on KT stages

Estratégias

de Produtos

Métodos e

ferram. de

DP

TI e Bases de

dados

Ambiente

físico e

Infraestrutura

Motivação e

interesses

individuais

Competências

técnicas e

humanas

Estratégias e

práticas de gestão

das equipes

Relacion.

com centros

de P&D

Políticas

governamentais

Formação e

cultura regional

Equipamentos

de DP

Ambiente

virtual de

trabalho

Liderança e

estratégia

organizacional

Cultura e

clima

organizacional

Rel. com

Fornecedor

Org. de

ativides e

estrutura

dos projetos

Main aim of this study:

To understand thesesystemic relationships

To propose managerialtools to improve theorganizational conditionsthat help foster KT

Book in process (2015)

A taxonomy for KT factors (Frank et al., 2014)

• A number of works can be found in the literature which

identify factors influencing KT.

• However, such factors are dispersed throughout the literature.

Different research streams (such as the behavioral and

technological approaches) have also emphasized different

groups of factors.

RQ: How can the main KT factors identified in the NPD literature be organized for a better understanding of their characteristics?

Main objetive: To propose a taxonomy for KT factos in order to turn more comprehensive.

12

A taxonomy for KT factors (Frank et al., 2014)

Taxonomy Building Process

Systematic review of the literature identification of 87 papers describing different elements that influence KT between NPD teams.

Mixed Methods strategy for the taxonomy building (sociotechnical approach)

13

Procedures for Focus Group

Initial Taxonomy

Procedures for Principal Components Analysis

Procedures for individual interviews

Taxonomy Simplification Taxonomy Consolidation

Methodological

Procedures

Results

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Qualitative Research Quantitative Research

2 Focus groupOne with 7 scholars andone with 5 productmanagers.

Individual interviews with 6 experts in NPD (both scholars andmanagers)

Survey - 82 companies.Multivariate PCA toclassify factors andgroups

We used the socio-technical taxonomy framework, which considers four subsystems:

(i) Personnel Subsystem People behaviour, culture, etc.

(ii) Technological Subystem IT tools, infrastructure, etc.

(iii) Work Design Subsystem work method, organization, etc.

(iv) External Environment Subystem socio-economical context, etc.

A taxonomy for KT factors (Frank et al., 2014)

A taxonomy for KT factors (Frank et al., 2014)

Results: 16 main factors summarized more than 100 elements of the NPD environment that influence KT between NPD teams.

15

A meta-model for KT between NPD teams

16

KT process stages

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

KT influencing factors relationship

Companies’ organizational characteristics

Impact of influencing factors on KT stages

Estratégias

de Produtos

Métodos e

ferram. de

DP

TI e Bases de

dados

Ambiente

físico e

Infraestrutura

Motivação e

interesses

individuais

Competências

técnicas e

humanas

Estratégias e

práticas de gestão

das equipes

Relacion.

com centros

de P&D

Políticas

governamentais

Formação e

cultura regional

Equipamentos

de DP

Ambiente

virtual de

trabalho

Liderança e

estratégia

organizacional

Cultura e

clima

organizacional

Rel. com

Fornecedor

Org. de

ativides e

estrutura

dos projetos

Main aim of this study:

To understand thesesystemic relationships

To propose managerialtools to improve theorganizational conditionsthat help foster KT

Book in process (2015)

Factors vs. KT process stages (Frank & Ribeiro, 2014)

KT1 KT2 KT3 KT4 KT5

17

Factor 1

Factor 2

KT

Factor1

Factor2

Factor3

Factor4

Factorn

Traditional approach: KT not as a process

Our approach:To relate the KT factorsWith the KT process stages

Factors from the taxonomy

Factors vs. KT process stages (Frank & Ribeiro, 2014)

Method: Based on a quantitative analysis performed with 22 NPD scholars andpractitioners + two study cases.

Results: Front-end factors + Support factors

18

A meta-model for KT between NPD teams

19

KT process stages

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

KT influencing factors relationship

Companies’ organizational characteristics

Impact of influencing factors on KT stages

Estratégias

de Produtos

Métodos e

ferram. de

DP

TI e Bases de

dados

Ambiente

físico e

Infraestrutura

Motivação e

interesses

individuais

Competências

técnicas e

humanas

Estratégias e

práticas de gestão

das equipes

Relacion.

com centros

de P&D

Políticas

governamentais

Formação e

cultura regional

Equipamentos

de DP

Ambiente

virtual de

trabalho

Liderança e

estratégia

organizacional

Cultura e

clima

organizacional

Rel. com

Fornecedor

Org. de

ativides e

estrutura

dos projetos

Main aim of this study:

To understand thesesystemic relationships

To propose managerialtools to improve theorganizational conditionsthat help foster KT

Book in process (2015)

A relationship model between KT factors (Frank et al., 2015)

Organizatinal factors not only influence directly on KT,

but they may also have a synergistic relationship fostering to eachother.

Research Problem: Most of the academic literature on this subject is qualitative or has been devoted to study only the direct influence of individual factors on the process of KT, without considering relationships between them

20

Objective:To develop a model for assessing relationships between the KT factors at the NPD project teams level

Under review

Application of a questionnaire to NPD experts, asking to what extent factor X support the implementation, improvement or development of factor Y.

22 experts in NPD (15 practitioners + 7 academics)

Analysis of data collected and model construction

Following Saurin et al. (2010), the relationship model was designed considering only elements with a moderate to strong influence (grade of responses > 2.50 on 5)

21

A relationship model between KT factors (Frank et al., 2015)

22

KT factors as independent variables

H

TS

MII

OC

C

LO

S

SP

TM

ITD

B

AC

ES

*

EQ

DP

WO

RK

PR

OS

OS

PA

ME

T

RE

SU

RE

CE

PO

L

CU

L

KT

fac

tors

as

ind

epen

den

t v

aria

ble

s

HTS 3.35 3.06 3.29 3.18 2.41 2.12 2.41 1.82 2.12 2.12 2.35 2.53 2.94 1.35 2.59

MII 2.65 3.47 3.18 3.41 1.94 2.41 2.59 2.53 2.29 2.47 1.94 2.06 2.88 1.24 2.53

OCC 3.29 2.88 3.59 3.06 2.12 2.00 1.65 2.59 2.00 2.25 1.76 2.00 2.35 1.41 2.65

LOS 3.18 3.12 3.24 2.76 1.65 1.65 1.29 1.88 2.18 1.88 1.19 1.71 2.13 1.59 2.53

SPTM 2.88 2.94 3.29 3.50 1.41 1.71 1.29 2.06 1.88 1.76 1.41 1.65 2.06 1.71 2.59

ITDB 2.59 2.35 2.53 2.76 2.12 3.24 2.76 2.12 2.00 2.53 2.18 1.41 1.47 1.24 1.94

ACES* 2.18 2.47 2.71 2.88 1.71 3.88 2.53 2.29 2.24 2.71 1.88 1.24 1.65 1.24 1.53

EQDP 3.18 2.47 2.65 2.94 1.94 2.59 2.41 2.35 2.53 2.35 2.18 1.76 2.12 1.65 1.94

WORK 1.88 1.82 2.76 2.82 1.59 2.00 1.94 2.06 1.88 2.29 1.65 1.13 1.12 0.94 1.41

PROS 3.06 2.59 3.24 3.53 2.12 2.35 2.41 2.47 1.94 2.94 2.47 2.53 2.71 2.53 2.24

OSPA 3.13 2.47 2.80 3.00 2.27 2.93 3.07 2.67 2.87 2.87 2.27 1.80 2.13 1.00 2.13

MET 3.13 2.33 2.87 2.93 2.13 2.53 2.67 2.07 1.53 2.47 2.80 1.40 1.87 0.73 1.53

RESU 2.47 2.20 2.60 2.87 1.67 1.60 1.47 1.60 0.87 2.20 1.93 1.60 2.00 1.87 1.73

RECE 3.00 2.53 2.87 3.27 2.00 1.67 1.73 1.93 1.20 3.00 1.67 1.53 1.93 2.47 2.33

POL 1.47 1.27 2.00 2.13 1.47 1.13 0.87 0.87 0.80 2.20 1.33 1.00 1.93 2.40 2.07

CUL 2.20 1.87 2.13 2.47 2.33 1.00 0.93 1.07 1.00 1.60 1.07 1.00 1.67 2.33 2.67

Table of Results

There are some factors strongly interrelated Personnel Subsystem

Culture (OCC) and Leadership (LEOR) are critical factors that influence all internal factors. Human and technical skills (HTS) influence almost allfactors

A relationship model between KT factors (Frank et al., 2015)

23

Graphical illustration of the Table of Results

A relationship model between KT factors (Frank et al., 2015)

Methods and tools

of NPD

(MET)

Organizational

structure and

project activities

(OSPA)

A

IT and databases

(ITDB)

Government

policies (POL)

Cultural Background

of People in the

Region (CUL)

Personnel

subsystem

Work Design

subsystem

Technological

subsystem

Personnel

subsystem

Product strategies

(PROS)

BExternal

subsystem

Illustrative simplification of some relationships of the proposed model

Fig.A: A path of influences is shown starting from the external environment

Fig.B: There is a sequential relationship between the showed factors. It can be also seen that IT and databases works as a support for organizational structure and project activities and methods and tools of NPD

A relationship model between KT factors (Frank et al., 2015)

Illustrative simplification of some relationships of the proposed model

Fig. A shows two paths of influences that start in factor relationship with suppliers and other companies and ends in Product Strategies

Fig. B Product Strategies is crucial as it generates four potentially virtuous loops

Product strategies

(PROS)

Equipment for

project

development

(EQPD)

Motivation and

individual

interests (MII)

Organizational

structure and

project activities

(OSPA)

IT and

databases

(ITDB)

Human and

technical skills

(HTS)

Relationship with

suppliers and

companies

(RESU)

Product strategies

(PROS)

Motivation and

individual

interests (MII)

A B

Relationship

with R&D

centers (RECE)

A relationship model between KT factors (Frank et al., 2015)

• Brazilian company manufaturing hardware for the telco ind.

• 650 employees of whom 310 in R&D

• 19 product engineers involved in the assessment

Application and validation – 1. In depth case application

KT factors as independent variables *

HT

S

MII

OC

C

LO

S

SP

TM

ITD

B

EQ

PD

WO

RK

PR

OS

OS

PA

ME

T

RE

SU

RE

CE

PO

L

CU

L

KT

fac

tors

as

dep

end

ent

var

iab

les

*

HTS X 7.58 6.74 6.05 3.84 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.53 4.58 -- 7.32

MII 7.16 X 6.47 5.68 3.68 -- 5.68 5.26 -- -- -- -- 3.32 -- 6.00

OCC 6.74 6.89 X 5.53 3.89 -- -- 4.79 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.16

LOS 6.26 6.21 5.68 X 4.05 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.42

SPTM 5.00 4.84 4.89 4.42 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.68

ITDB 6.53 -- 6.42 6.37 -- X 5.95 -- -- 6.26 -- -- -- -- --

EQPD 7.42 -- 6.32 5.74 -- 6.58 X -- 4.95 -- -- -- -- -- --

WORK -- -- 5.05 5.42 -- -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- --

PROS 7.26 6.11 5.58 6.21 -- -- -- -- X 5.74 -- 5.05 3.32 7.84 --

OSPA 7.26 -- 6.32 6.89 -- 6.63 6.11 6.37 5.37 X -- -- -- -- --

MET 6.11 -- 4.89 4.79 -- 6.61 -- -- -- 5.00 X -- -- -- --

RESU -- -- 6.95 6.32 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X -- -- --

RECE 5.32 4.95 4.53 4.42 -- -- -- -- 3.89 -- -- -- X -- --

POL -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X --

CUL -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.05 X

Factors corresponding to individuals

(HTS and MII) stronger than those

related to the group, organizational

culture and climate (OCC and)

leadership and organizational

strategies (LOS)

Average 5.72 and no single factor has

average higher than 7.60 (scale of 0 to 10)

Strategies and practices of team

management (SPTM) and relationships with

R&D centers (RECE) particularly poor

Average 5.72 (on a scale of 0 to 10)

and no single factor has average higher

than 7.60

Strategies and practices of team

management (SPTM) and

relationships with R&D centers

(RECE) particularly poor

Validation stage in companies

- Test in five companies:Analysis of correlation betweenfactors performance andSupport received. Factorsdistribution and practicalusefulness of the model

The model was validated, since it showed high positive correlation and a well adjustement in different contexts

Application and validation – 2. Comparison of results in 5 companies

A meta-model for KT between NPD teams

28

KT process stages

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

KT influencing factors relationship

Companies’ organizational characteristics

Impact of influencing factors on KT stages

Estratégias

de Produtos

Métodos e

ferram. de

DP

TI e Bases de

dados

Ambiente

físico e

Infraestrutura

Motivação e

interesses

individuais

Competências

técnicas e

humanas

Estratégias e

práticas de gestão

das equipes

Relacion.

com centros

de P&D

Políticas

governamentais

Formação e

cultura regional

Equipamentos

de DP

Ambiente

virtual de

trabalho

Liderança e

estratégia

organizacional

Cultura e

clima

organizacional

Rel. com

Fornecedor

Org. de

ativides e

estrutura

dos projetos

Main aim of this study:

To understand thesesystemic relationships

To propose managerialtools to improve theorganizational conditionsthat help foster KT

Book in process (2015)

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

29

To explore the existing relationship among company profile (characteristics) and the KT influencing factors between NPD teams.

Approach: a survey from national and multinational companies operating in Brazilian market.

Study based on a cluster analysis of survey data.

Different company profileSome specific KT factors may be more relevant

Partial results

30

Company’s size

NPD project team size

Proximity of NPD teams (co-located vs. virtual teams)

Number of concurrent NPD projects

Duration of the NPD projects

Degree of product innovativeness

Degree of project complexity

Companies’ characteristics that may influence on the attributed importance to KT factors

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

Research method

31

Elaboration

• Degree of importance that companies attribute to the 16 KT factors

• Company’s profile characteristics

Sending

• Sent by e-mail to a list of 400 NPD managerial contacts

• University database (MBA and consulting activities)

Collection

• 58 useful questionnaires were obtained until today (partial results)

• 14.5% response rate

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

Research method

32

Industrial Sector Company Characterization

Automotive and aerospace 13 22% Number of

employees

≤500 55%

Metal-mechanical 11 19% >500 45%

Engineering Projects 8 14% Size of NPD

teams

≤30 people 62%

Chemical and Pharmaceutical 7 12% >30 38%

Logistics and transport systems 4 7% Location of

teams

Co-located 43%

Electronic 3 5% Dispersed 57%

Textile 3 5% Number of

projects

≤10 projects 78%

Construction 2 3% > 10 projects 22%

Telecommunications 2 3% Project

duration

≤12 months 67%

Energy 2 3% > 12 months 33%

Others 3 5% Degree of

Innovation

Incremental 84%

Radical 16%

Degree of

complexity

High 66%

Low/medium 34%

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

Research method

Procedures for Cluster Analysis

33

Cluster analysis

• To identify groups with similarities

• Based on the importance attributed to KT factors

• Hierarchical procedure + Dendogram + K-means algoritm

Independence test between

groups

• To differentiate groups based on the companies’ characteristics

• Contingency table + Pearson Chi-squared test

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

34

Subsystems Influencing factors on KT Means

ANOVA

F-Value Group

1

Group

2

Personnel

Human and Technical Skills 3.28 3.41 0.49

Motivation and Individual Interests 3.38 2.99 8.00 ***

Organizational Culture and Climate 3.10 3.22 0.52

Strategies and Practices of Team Management 2.59 2.60 0.00

Leadership and Organizational Strategies 3.51 2.95 11.38***

Relationships with R&D Centers 2.47 3.11 12.05***

Technology

IT and integration of databases 3.38 2.98 7.78 ***

Accessibility of Users to IT and Databases 3.39 3.03 4.86 **

Equipment for Project Development 3.01 2.95 0.14

Disposition of Workplace and Adequacy of Infrastructure 2.60 2.60 0.00

Work Design

Product Strategies 3.26 2.76 10.40***

Organizational Structure and Project Activities 3.29 3.03 3.02

Use of Methods and Tools of NPD 3.51 2.75 22.62***

External

Environment

Relationship with Suppliers and other Companies 2.98 3.30 2.29

Government Policies 2.03 2.84 15.44***

Cultural Background of People in the Region 1.75 2.99 50.30***

Group 1 higher performance in factors internal to the company (Personnel, Technology and Work Design Subsystem)Group 2 higher importance than Group 1 to factors related to the External Environment Subsystem

Internal

External

Research method

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

35

Characteristics Group 1 Group 2 p-value

Number of employees ≤500 19 59% 13 50%

0.475 > 500 13 41% 13 50%

Number of employees related

to NPD process

≤ 30 23 72% 13 50% 0.088*

> 30 9 28% 13 50%

Team location Co-located 14 44% 11 42%

0.912 Dispersed 18 56% 15 58%

Number of concurrent

project

≤10 projects 29 91% 16 62% 0.012**

> 10 projects 3 9% 10 38%

Project duration ≤ 12 months 22 69% 17 65%

0.786 > 12 months 10 31% 9 35%

Degree of innovativeness Incremental 26 81% 23 88%

0.495 Radical 6 19% 3 12%

Degree of complexity Low/Moderate 25 78% 13 50%

0.025** High 7 22% 13 50%

N= 32 26 ** p<0.05;*p<0.1

Independence test between groups

//

Research method

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

Comparing between the two considered groups

36

Group 1

• ≤30 people

• ≤10 concurrent projects

• Low/moderate degree of NPD complexity

• Focused on internal KT factors

Group 2

• >30 people

• >10 concurrent projects

• High degree of NPD complexity

• Focused on the external KT factors

Research method

Company profile (characteristics) vs. KT factors

Group 1 focused on internal KT factors. Why? Lack of maturity of their NPD management approach. Thus, they are more concerned with the internal factors.

Group 2 focused on external KT factors. Why? Greater maturity level in NPD management activities. Thus, less preoccupation about internal KT factors. Looking outside, more concerned with the external sources of knowledge

37

Future activities and research on KT

NDP KT

Types of Organizational StructureOrganizational Structures for NPD Process

The role of structure in KT

How the KT process is influenced by diferente organizational structres?Which structure should an organziation adopt in order to achieve a better KT performance?

39

Some students work in this line

Knowledge Transfer in Multifunctional Teams: a Product and Service Innovation perspective

Carolline Amaral Paslauskipaslauski@producao.ufrgs.br

October 2014

Carolline Amaral Paslauski, Eng.Industrial engineer by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (2014).Currently is research in the Post-Graduation Program of Industrial Engineeringof UFRGS. Operates with a focus on Knowledge Transfer in MultifunctionalTeams and Innovative Product and Service Development.Contact: paslauski@producao.ufrgs.br

The Knowledge Transfer as a commom ground for Information flow in product development projects and a

incentive for innovation

Knowledge Transfer in Multifunctional Teams: a Product and Service Innovation perspective

Literature SistematicReview

Framework for incentive of KT in MT

Test andimprovement

MultifunctionalTeams

Product andService

Development

KnowldegeTransfer

Social Networks Analysis as a tool to foster the informal KT network of a company

Vanessa Becker Bertonivbertoni@producao.ufrgs.br

October 2014

The parallel structure that influence on KT

Cross et al (2000). IBM Institute for Business Value. A bird's-eye view: Using social network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing.

An example of network analysis

Final considerations

• Our approach for KT Combination between business and engineering

• Strong focus on theory (academic publication), but with a final product for companies (decision tools).

• Application in consultancy projects (Ministry of Industry, Petrobras, HCPA, EniItaly)

Current partners of our group

DIG, Politecnico di Milano (M. Corso, L. Gastaldi, A. Ghezzi)

Dep. of Marketing & Management, University of Southern Denmark(W.Gerstlberger)

Starting... Grenoble INP (Lilia Gzara)

46

Published papers on this issue

FRANK, A. G. ; RIBEIRO, J. L. D. Influence factors and process stages of knowledge transfer between NPD teams: A model for guiding practical improvements. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, v. 31, p. 222-237, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-04-2012-0046

FRANK, A. G. ; RIBEIRO, J. L. D. ; ECHEVESTE, M.E.S. Factors influencing knowledge transfer between NPD teams: a taxonomic analysis based on a sociotechnical approach. R & D Management (Print), v. 21 FEB, p. 1-22, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/radm.12046

FRANK, A. G. ; RIBEIRO, J. L. D. An integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, v. 12, p. 215-225, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.57

Frank, Alejandro ; Echeveste, Márcia . Knowledge transfer between NPD project teams: A method for the identification of improvement opportunities. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, v. 29, p. 242-264, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656711211216126

47

Knowledge Transfer in New Product DevelopmentResearch activities and perspectives

Prof. Alejandro G. Frankfrank@producao.ufrgs.br

October, 2014